Glenn Beck: You know what’s killing America? Godlessness

posted at 7:40 pm on September 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

Give him credit for consistency: The second “core principle” of the 9/12 Project is, after all, “I believe in God and He is the center of my life.” I complained about that not long ago and a bunch of Beck fans jumped in to remind me that he’s said one needn’t believe in all the “core principles” to be part of the movement. No? Watch this clip and tell me how optional you think the God principle is in his mind.

I take his point about some liberal atheists filling the spiritual void with belief in government — it’s a pet peeve of an evangelical Democrat friend of mine, in fact — but (a) it’s not true of all nonbelievers, especially of the conservative stripe, and (b) personally, if I were inclined to get on my knees and wish/hope/pray for intervention from either God or Barack Obama, I’d call out for The One too. After all, there’s at least a chance he might show. I don’t get the either/or dichotomy Beck draws between social justice and eternal justice either; for starters, I can imagine Martin Luther King objecting rather strenuously to that. Nor do I understand the snotty, presumptuous accusation that atheists are “filling the void” with money and careers. Personally, I don’t feel any spiritual void, and even if I did, I’d rather not be lectured about it by a guy who has his own media empire and who’ll make more money this year than my entire extended family has made in the past century. What “void” in Beck’s soul is he filling with his fantastically popular show? See how condescending it is to even ask that?

And one more thing. If the key to American governance is the passage in the Declaration of Independence about god-given inalienable rights, why’d the authors of the Constitution go ahead and enumerate some of those rights anyway? And why, if they’re inalienable and god-given, weren’t those rights made exempt from amendment or repeal via Article V? The touchstone of the Constitution isn’t God, it’s rule by popular consent; religion may well influence the public in deciding which rights are so critical that even the popularly elected government should be forbidden to touch them, but when push comes to shove, it’s your call, not God’s. Slavery was once a right too, after all, and I’m sure there were plenty of apologists who found religious backing for that, fair or not.

Exit question: Why does he keep pushing the argument that his show isn’t about Democrat vs. Republican? That’s true, strictly speaking — he’s a libertarian, not a party apparatchik — but the Dems have been the party of big(ger) government for the past 40 years, at least. They’re antithetical to his philosophy. Saying his show has, or should have, no partisan resonance is like Janeane Garofalo insisting that she’s not about Dems or Repubs, just “truth.”

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Only in a right4life manner.
You are trying to argue that the buckle was simply a hold over for a previous time. That might be supported if it were not for all of the other cases of Hitler using the xian faith in speeches as was quoted before.
Taken as a whole, it still can be said that Hitler used the faith to that end including the belt buckles.
Only in a right4life manner.
You are trying to argue that the buckle was simply a hold over for a previous time. That might be supported if it were not for all of the other cases of Hitler using the xian faith in speeches as was quoted before.
Taken as a whole, it still can be said that Hitler used the faith to that end including the belt buckles.

Follow me closely here, Gene. I’m gonna type slowly…

I don’t pursue arguments of opinion. I don’t return to a comment and insist on my viewpoint or whine or go back and forth like 5th graders.
Why?
It’s pointless because of the very nature of opinion.
Here’s the way I handle it. I state my viewpoint. I state the basis for my viewpoint. That’s it. That’s all. If it gets shouted down, Meh, oh well. I leave it alone. Occasionally those with a different viewpoint will request a clarification. I’ll answer those if I see it.

Why do I relate that? Stay with me, Gene, be strong…

I’m not part of the discussion as to the atheistic or Xian inclinations of Hitler. Really, son. Go back and look. In no instance have I tipped my hand. At no point prior do you have a basis for assuming my belief. That discussion has devolved into opinion, thus I have no further interest. Matter of fact what I read bored me until I saw Bentmans error. As for me, I’ve long known that Hitler had a perverse Deity belief so insisting on atheism is a slippery proposition. Likewise I’ve long known he despised Christianity as well as Christians and other religious adherents.
You’re convinced he was Xian, and you’re gonna go to your grave insisting he was Xian as far as I can tell.
I don’t care. Not in the least. Call him Xian. You haven’t seen me argue the point. Why? It’s opinion.

It’s why I don’t use him (Hitler) as an example when I’m amusing myself by carving up atheist trolls on other boards. I use other examples. There’s plenty enough of them.

Are you serious about this question?
Are. you. Really. Serious. about. this. question.?

So instead of addressing it you post more condescending replies.

I’ll be honest with you, sport.

And we have condescending nicknames. You already lost the debate when you resorted to insults, much like R4L did.

I can’t even follow the logic in that statement, especially in re: unless you are claiming their uniform were exactly the same from WWI into WWII.

You claim that the motto was traditional and predate Hitler therefore he couldn’t possibly have used it or it cannot be claimed that have been used by him or the Nazi party.
Unless the uniforms were exactly the same as WWI, then the Nazi party altered them and did so to their own means, your claim is erronious. In support of that I have posted a link to the picture of a Nazi buckle with the motto intact.

Follow me closely here, Gene. I’m gonna type slowly…

More condescension. What a shock. After the insults, you have already shown your inability to debate in a rational manner. The rest is simply gravy.

I don’t pursue arguments of opinion.

You have here so that claim is fallacious.

I don’t return to a comment and insist on my viewpoint or whine or go back and forth like 5th graders.

But you have by calling comments you disagree with insipid and casting personal insults about another poster. If you were just debating or positing opinion, then such would not be needed by you. Then we have the “talking down to” attitude of a self-professed elitist. Nice rounding off.

It’s pointless because of the very nature of opinion.

Yet that is all you have posted; your opinion of the general army and the Nazis.

Here’s the way I handle it. I state my viewpoint. I state the basis for my viewpoint. That’s it. That’s all. If it gets shouted down, Meh, oh well. I leave it alone

.
Really? Then why the insults and condescension? Your action do not back up your claims.

Occasionally those with a different viewpoint will request a clarification. I’ll answer those if I see it.

Yet you are forgetting you posted under the erroneous claim that B78 stated that god is with us was the Nazi motto, which he did not.

Why do I relate that? Stay with me, Gene, be strong…

More insults and condescention.

I’m not part of the discussion as to the atheistic or Xian inclinations of Hitler.

Yet you interjected your opinion into that very topic trying to claim that the Nazis or Hitler never used such a motto. Again, your actions do not support your claims or excuses at this point.

Really, son.

More condescension.

Go back and look. In no instance have I tipped my hand.

Tipped how? You mean by arguing against something that was not stated to begin with?

At no point prior do you have a basis for assuming my belief.

I never said I did. I have all the proof of what you believe by what you have posted.

That discussion has devolved into opinion, thus I have no further interest.

LOL. Translation: you butted in on this conversation with an objection that B78 never made. Once that is pointed out, and the fact that you post based upon your opinion of the topic, you now seek to back pedal or explain your way out of the corner you put yourself in.

Matter of fact what I read bored me until I saw Bentmans error.

Yet you still posted under a fallacious basis and still have yet to prove what he claimed is in error.

As for me, I’ve long known that Hitler had a perverse Deity belief so insisting on atheism is a slippery proposition. Likewise I’ve long known he despised Christianity as well as Christians and other religious adherents.

Yet had no problem proclaiming himself acting in accordance with the xian faith and doing god’s work.

You’re convinced he was Xian, and you’re gonna go to your grave insisting he was Xian as far as I can tell.

You judge a person on what the profess as their beliefs. The facts of history are that, by his own claims and words, he was a xian. He believed he was doing god’s work.

I don’t care. Not in the least.

Obviously, so much that you had to argue against something that wasn’t even stated here.

Call him Xian. You haven’t seen me argue the point. Why? It’s opinion.

No, it is fact. Other xians may denounce him, but again, by his own claims, he was doing god’s work.

You are erroneously trying to claim that this is opinion when it is historical fact. That is intellectual dishonesty.

It’s why I don’t use him (Hitler) as an example when I’m amusing myself by carving up atheist trolls on other boards. I use other examples. There’s plenty enough of them.

Right. I’m sure you think so, but in this case, by his own words and proclamations, Hitler was a xian doing god’s work.

But agian, you pounced onto this discussion and rallied agianst a statement that was never made. B78 never claimed that it was the Nazi motto.

But again, you pounced onto this discussion and rallied against a statement that was never made. B78 never claimed that it was the Nazi motto.

Perhaps rather than jump so easily next time due your vested emotional interest in the topic and posting insults and condescending claims, you can try to argue about what was actually posted.

That way, you don’t have to back pedal and perform a bit of CYA in retreat.

So you appear to have a problem with what was posted. Bentman78 did not state that Gott Mit Uns was the Nazi motto. He stated it was used by Hitler and was on their belt buckles.

In any case, you are arguing against something that wasn’t stated.

Hitler among many used quoted and used christian ideology a lot. even the Nazi’s belt had “God is with us” inscribed on the buckle
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Here’s the exact statement I responded to. Is there a subtle difference ‘twixt his statement and yours?
Here’s my entire response.

Your statement is demonstrably false.

The inscription “Gott Mit Uns” dates from 1861 as an official inscription and pre 1700 as unofficial. This inscription was borne by the Wermacht Heer, otherwise known as the German Regular Army. The Wermacht was not an institution of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), known in English as the Nazi Party.

The inscription of the Waffen Schutzstaffel was
Meine Ehre heißt Treue ‘My honour is loyalty’. The Waffen-SS were Nazis.

wuzrobbd on October 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM

That’s why I much prefer to pursue objective statements and I make sure to stay on solid ground. He made a one word substition that is false. I called him on it just to amuse myself and see what kind of man he was. If he had conceded the point, or even amended his statement and made a logical counterpoint , he might be the rare atheist who is pleasant to engage in discourse from opposite viewpoints. I rather enjoy that when it happens. All it would take is a one word correction (Nazi to German) and I would have explained that the inscription probably carried little gravitas as it was traditional and left it at that if his response was surly. At that point it’s subjective, therefore of little interest to me.

Here’s the exact statement I responded to. Is there a subtle difference ‘twixt his statement and yours?
Here’s my entire response.

And you again try to equivocate. You claimed that B78 stated it was the Nazi motto. That is patently false.

You are now back pedaling to try to CYA after it has been shown that your argument is based upon you evident misstatement of what was stated.

That’s why I much prefer to pursue objective statements and I make sure to stay on solid ground.

So is that why you have put forth your opinion?

He made a one word substition that is false.

No, he stated fact. You argued against a claim that was not made and now seek to engage in a bit of CYA.

I called him on it just to amuse myself and see what kind of man he was.

No, you jumped based upon your misinterpretation of what he stated. Again, you claimed he stated that it was the Nazi motto. He did not.

If he had conceded the point, or even amended his statement and made a logical counterpoint , he might be the rare atheist who is pleasant to engage in discourse from opposite viewpoints.

Irrelevant blather. The fact stands.

I rather enjoy that when it happens. All it would take is a one word correction (Nazi to German) and I would have explained that the inscription probably carried little gravitas as it was traditional and left it at that if his response was surly. At that point it’s subjective, therefore of little interest to me.

So little interest that you took time out to post a counter argument. Odd thing that.

Answer the question Gene. Were the Nazis involved in WWI

And where did I ever state that Nazis were involved in WWI? As far as irrational tangents go, this ranks in the top five.

You’re losing it Gene :)

And again you have to resort to a personal insult and comment. You have lost the argument due to this and are no better than R4L.

But again, the fact remains that you jumped into this conversation on your erroneous claim that B78 claimed that the motto was a Nazi one.

And after this has been cited and you have been exposed as a condescending reactionary, you now seek to CYA and post excuses and back peddle.

You also put forth your opinion as historical fact all the while failing to mention how historians are divided on many of the topics you claim are fact.

Now of you could actually act in a rational manner rather than post insults, you could be of interest. But, unfortunately, you have resorted to personal insults and have simply lost the debate due to such irrational and emotional behavior.